Patient education and counseling · 2023
Patient understanding of pharmacogenomic test results in clinical care.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Doyle Tom A, Schmidt Karen K, Halverson Colin M E, Olivera Jesus, Garcia Abigail, Shugg Tyler A, Skaar Todd C, Schwartz Peter H
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Previous research has not objectively assessed patients' comprehension of their pharmacogenomic test results. In this study we assessed understanding of patients who had undergone cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) pharmacogenomic testing.
METHODS: 31 semi-structured interviews with patients who underwent CYP2C19 testing after cardiac catheterization and had been sent a brochure, letter, and wallet card explaining their results. Answers to Likert and binary questions were summarized with descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using a grounded theory approach, with particular focus on categorization.
RESULTS: No participants knew the name of the gene tested or their metabolizer status. Seven participants (23%) knew whether the testing identified any medications that would have lower effectiveness or increased adverse effects for them at standard doses ("Adequate Understanding"). Four participants (13%) read their results from the letter or wallet card they received but had no independent understanding ("Reliant on Written Materials"). Ten participants remembered receiving the written materials (32%).
CONCLUSION: A majority of participants who had undergone CYP2C19 PGx testing did not understand their results at even a minimal level and would be unable to communicate them to future providers.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Further research is necessary to improve patient understanding of PGx testing and their results, potentially through improving patient-provider communication.
METHODS: 31 semi-structured interviews with patients who underwent CYP2C19 testing after cardiac catheterization and had been sent a brochure, letter, and wallet card explaining their results. Answers to Likert and binary questions were summarized with descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using a grounded theory approach, with particular focus on categorization.
RESULTS: No participants knew the name of the gene tested or their metabolizer status. Seven participants (23%) knew whether the testing identified any medications that would have lower effectiveness or increased adverse effects for them at standard doses ("Adequate Understanding"). Four participants (13%) read their results from the letter or wallet card they received but had no independent understanding ("Reliant on Written Materials"). Ten participants remembered receiving the written materials (32%).
CONCLUSION: A majority of participants who had undergone CYP2C19 PGx testing did not understand their results at even a minimal level and would be unable to communicate them to future providers.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Further research is necessary to improve patient understanding of PGx testing and their results, potentially through improving patient-provider communication.